If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Battlefield's 2kmx2km and ArmA3's 20kmx20km (and that's only a landmass, ignoring stuff like detailed sea bottom) are two different scales (in fact that's 100 times different)

So I really fail to see how handling BF3 well is any indication of how much more demanding ArmA3 would handle on the same PC (don't forget - it also has complex AI routines and every destruction done at any point of the huge map stays like that forever, even grass being pushed down by anyone translates over network - and in BF3 foliage doesn't seem to interact with players in any way).

ArmA2: "Doc, I'm wounded, I can barely aim and I'm bleeding badly, come on pull my body out of the harm's way and treat me before I die!"
ArmA3: "You are wounded! Click to instantly regenerate health whenever you feel like it!"

Guess two years post-release aren't enough to make ArmA3 at least half as dumbed down.

on the other hand BF3 lighting engine is lighting years ahead of BIS...even without day cycles...so is the particle and gfx effects. Destruction, while the scale is smaller, is a also advanced.
And while all this pushes the GFX card a lot more than the CPU, the game can scale up to 8 cores/threads, which is something i have never seen A2 do properly.

If you will apply a color correction with the ridiculous amount of contrast to ArmA2 plus an ugly blue/green-ish tint its lightning engine will become just as "advanced" as BF3's (and Crysis 2's and CoD's for that matter)

the game can scale up to 8 cores/threads, which is something i have never seen A2 do properly.

Consoles have only 2 cores, man. Considering that the only difference between PC port and console versions lies in crispier textures I fail to see how additional 6 cores can help anything.
I mean BF3 has no AI and there are no physical remnants from destructions

If you will apply a color correction with the ridiculous amount of contrast to ArmA2 plus an ugly blue/green-ish tint its lightning engine will become just as "advanced" as BF3's (and Crysis 2's and CoD's for that matter)

you should really learn to read...i was talking about lighting engine, not post process and color/gamma/contrast correction(s)....

Consoles have only 2 cores, man. Considering that the only difference between PC port and console versions lies in crispier textures I fail to see how additional 6 cores can help anything.
I mean BF3 has no AI and there are no physical remnants from destructions

frostbyte is a game multi-platform game engine. I don't care about consoles no more than the next guy. Have a read (tnx to bangtail):

Originally Posted by Johann Anderrson, Rendering Architect at DICE
There will be two versions of the Frostbite Engine: Version 1.x is used for Battlefield: Bad Company 1, Battlefield 1943 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It supports Xbox 360, PS3 and DirectX 10. DICE is working on the Frostbite 2 engine at the moment that will support DirectX 10.1 and DirectX 11 as well. DICE is very proud of the parallelized engine since 2-8 parallel threads are supported for using full capacity of a Core i7 e.g.."

i've been already putting some money aside....plan to get 6850 vapor-x, new system fans and push the oc to the max. arma3's gonna eat the gpu alive, plus if it gets to dx11 the 128bit gpu will have some tough time...not to mention AA enabled